HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 814 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 10856 of 2025 whereby the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the respondents rejecting the claim of the appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment has been upheld. 2. Learned Single Judge has noted the specific finding recorded in the order impugned in the writ petition that the appellant's late father who had died in harness and on basis of which compassionate appointment was claimed, was getting Rs.56,793.00 per month as salary whereas the net monthly notional income of the family from all sources, as declared by the family members, works out to Rs.52,894.00. It has also been noted that the mother of appellant i.e., widow of the deceased/employee is getting family pension of Rs.39,272/- as per pension slip of the month of February 2025 and the family has received net terminal benefit of Rs.27.33 lacs (inclusive of Death Relief Fund of Rs.4,50,000/-). Thus, the finding recorded in the order impugned to the effect that the family of the deceased employee cannot be considered as living in penury or financial destitution to justify a compassionate appointment has been upheld. 3. Learned Single Judge has also made the following observations in paragraph-6 of the order: "6. In the entire petition, the observations made in the order impugned regarding financial parameters have not been disputed, Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Manisha Chaturvedi, Ram Sajiwan Prajapati Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Vivek Ratan Agrawal Atul Kumar .....Appellant(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) rather on a pointed query made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the petitioner, all other children of the deceased employee are working." 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the observations made by learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 to the effect that it was admitted before the Court that all children of the deceased employee are working, is incorrect. It is submitted that the deceased left behind in all nine family members i.e., widow, six sons and two daughters. It is submitted that out of them only two are employed. 5. It is not disputed before us that there was no challenge in the writ petition to the compassionate scheme of the bank whereunder it appears that compassionate appointment is permissible only in case, the family is found to be in financial destitution. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment but only a measure to overcome the financial crisis which befall on a family as a result of death of deceased employee. As it is not disputed before us that the net monthly notional income of the family would work out to more than fifty thousand rupees which is at par with the salary which was being drawn by the deceased employee and at least two persons in the family are admittedly in employment, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 9, 2025 Mukesh Kr. SPLA No. 814 of 2025 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad